wolverine
Member
If you had a to choose only one or the M8 for portraits, which would you prefer? I understand the difference in focal length. I am interested in the quality of the portrait. Thanks for considering. 
ali_baba
Well-known
Both
Both
the 50 is a great portrait lens, however the summilux 75 is amazing.
there's some threads on l-camera-forum about this right now...
Both
the 50 is a great portrait lens, however the summilux 75 is amazing.
there's some threads on l-camera-forum about this right now...
thomasw_
Well-known
yea i agree with ali baba about the lux 75. i think it is the best portrait lens i have used. that said, the pre-asph 50 renders a lot like the 75 and is a better all round lens. but i strongly recommend the lux 75 if you are after a portrait lens. the 75 will give you great service in other endeavours, too.
ferider
Veteran
I think they render very, very similarly. Almost the same design, too.
Really depends on if you like 50 or longer for portraits. And what other lenses you carry.
I myself adore the 75 in combo with a 35. I also like the fact that the 75 goes down to .7m, gives you a cropping ability that no other RF lens does. But, on the downside, the 75 is quite big.
Best,
Roland.
Really depends on if you like 50 or longer for portraits. And what other lenses you carry.
I myself adore the 75 in combo with a 35. I also like the fact that the 75 goes down to .7m, gives you a cropping ability that no other RF lens does. But, on the downside, the 75 is quite big.
Best,
Roland.
W
Way
Guest
I don't have the 75 but did have a 50 lux pre asph. I wish I didn't sell it. On the M8 the 50 is like a 65 and the 75 is almost a 100. I do like the 50 for portraits and it is a great all around lens. This was with the 50 lux pre asph on film:
edhohoho
Established
I agree with thomasw. The 50 pre-asph Summilux and 75 Summilux render quite similarly when wide open, but the 50 is more versatile in terms of its focal length/angle of view and handling/portability. The 50 is also significantly less expensive than the 75. I haven't shot portraits with the 50 pre-asph slightly stopped down, but when the 75 is stopped down slightly, it gets extremely sharp (as in facial hairs and pores degree of sharpness at 100% crop). As a purely portrait lens, I like the 75 because of its "crop factor"--meaning I don't have to get in as close to the subject to get a tight shot as I would with the 50. I don't think you can go wrong with either.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
depends how you shoot your portraits; meaning how close do you work or what portrait means to you? In-close tight shoots would call for the 75mm.
Richard Marks
Rexel
I have both and can honestly say the 50 is more versatile and a lot easier to focus. It certainly gets more use than the 75, but every now and then the 75 produces something really special. Attached are some shots using the 75 lux at 1.4. The depthof field is virtually none existent which means there is quite an error rate but when you get it spot on its fabulous. You really can isolate your subject and the out of focus areas are soft but recognizeable.
From a practical point of view you will be looking at potentially a 20 year old lens and it would be worth sending it and your camera in to get the focusing checked out on your particular camera. Other minor gripes its heavy and the focus throw is quite long by modern standards. In summary if you can only have one the 50 is more flexible but for the exotic the 75 is tricky to get right but worth the effort.
best wishes
Richard
From a practical point of view you will be looking at potentially a 20 year old lens and it would be worth sending it and your camera in to get the focusing checked out on your particular camera. Other minor gripes its heavy and the focus throw is quite long by modern standards. In summary if you can only have one the 50 is more flexible but for the exotic the 75 is tricky to get right but worth the effort.
best wishes
Richard
Nemo
Established
M8 and SX 75, wide open:
myM8yogi
Well-known
Awesome shots.
As a budget option I strongly recommend the CV75/2.5 color scopar.
As a budget option I strongly recommend the CV75/2.5 color scopar.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
As a budget option, I recommend the Jupiter-9, but that's not what the question is about, is it?
wolverine said:
If I had to choose, then it would be the 75mm Summilux. It allows you to be farther away from the subject, and the distance makes most people more comfortable.
Hacker
黑客
It is very large and heavy....
proenca
Proenca
Tough one...
75 lux is superior lens BUT
and a big but
I prefer the preasph lux... first the 50mm focus down to 0.7, lets you get up and close.
second it allows "room" for the photo to breathe... dont know if I can express clearly here...
third you can do it soft or sharp. examples both with 50mm lux preasph :
and this photo is PIN sharp trust me ( I dont like to oversharpen for the web )
stopped down its ultra sharp
to be honest I like it because its a versatile lens : excellent for portraits, nice for everything else depending on which aperture.
YMMV
75 lux is superior lens BUT
and a big but
I prefer the preasph lux... first the 50mm focus down to 0.7, lets you get up and close.
second it allows "room" for the photo to breathe... dont know if I can express clearly here...
third you can do it soft or sharp. examples both with 50mm lux preasph :
and this photo is PIN sharp trust me ( I dont like to oversharpen for the web )
stopped down its ultra sharp
to be honest I like it because its a versatile lens : excellent for portraits, nice for everything else depending on which aperture.
YMMV
proenca
Proenca
ah and forgot one of the BUTS
the 75 is big and heavy. gets tiresome after a while.
50 lux is just right.
the 75 is big and heavy. gets tiresome after a while.
50 lux is just right.
dof
Fiat Lux
Both are excellent lenses for doing portraiture. Like the 50mm, the look of the 75mm tightens up when stopped down - rendering a more contrasty look than when shot wide open. They are both exemplary examples of "classical" lens design - if you're a fan of that look, you can't go wrong with either.
I would only rate the 50mm as superior due to its far easier handling with a shorter focus throw, smaller size, and lighter weight.
-J.
I would only rate the 50mm as superior due to its far easier handling with a shorter focus throw, smaller size, and lighter weight.
-J.
Goldorak
-
Portraits with a 50mm lens is simply a mistake when there's a 75mm available for the job. I can't understand this thread.
dof
Fiat Lux
Given that the thread is in the M8 forum, the 1.33x crop factor makes the choice a little more ambiguous, wouldn't you agree?
Well, perhaps not! <g>
Goldorak
-
66.5mm is hardly enough. A 50mm lens is a classic, but not a good portraiture FL. Never been, never will be.
Even 75mm is flush for portraiture, with 90mm being ideal.
Even 75mm is flush for portraiture, with 90mm being ideal.
wolverine
Member
Thanks for the responses. I have the 50 pre. I really like it. Just don't want to be missing anything. I will keep on with I have for a while. Great shots to all. Proenca really like your sense of breathing.
chut
Luceat Lux Vestra
A 50mm lens can be wonderful for portraits. Take a look at the book An Inner Silence: The Portraits of Henri Cartier Bresson, there are about a hundred incredible portraits in there, almost all taken with a 50.